Hi, I'd like to revisit this now.
I'd like to commit this stuff as-is and then take some time to revisit the catch-all softclock from cpu0 swi. It's more complicated than it needs to be as it just assumes timeout_cpu == cpuid of cpu 0. So there's no easy way to slide in a new catch-all softclock. Once that's done I'd like to then experiment with turning on the pcpu tcp timer stuff and gluing that into the RSS CPU ID / netisr ID stuff. Thanks, -a On 20 February 2014 13:48, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 20 February 2014 11:17, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> (A further variant of this would be to divorce cpu0's swi from the >> catch-all softclock and let the catch-all softclock float, but bind >> all the per-cpu swis) > > I like this idea. If something (eg per-CPU TCP timers, if it's turned > on) makes a very specific decision about the CPU then it should be > fixed. Otherwise a lot of the underlying assumptions for things like > RSS just aren't guaranteed to hold. > > It could also perhaps extend to some abstract pool of CPUs later, if > we wanted to do things like one flowing swi per socket or whatnot when > we start booting on 1024 core boxes... > > -a _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
